Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in 
	the Democratic Revolution

From what Direction is the Proletariat Threatened with
      the Danger of Having its Hands Tied in the Struggle Against the
      Inconsistent Bourgeoisie?

Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of
      the Russian revolution. What does this mean? It means that the
      democratic reforms in the political system and the social and
      economic reforms, which have become a necessity for Russia, do
      not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism, the
      undermining of bourgeois rule; on the contrary, they will, for
      the first time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid,
      European, and not Asiatic, development of capitalism; they will,
      for the first time, make it possible for the bourgeoisie to rule
      as a class. The Socialist-Revolutionaries cannot grasp this
      idea, for they are ignorant of the rudiments of the laws of
      development of commodity and capitalist production; they fail to
      see that even the complete success of a peasant insurrection,
      even the redistribution of the whole of the land for the benefit
      of the peasants and in accordance with their desires (“Black
      Redistribution” or something of that kind), will not destroy
      capitalism at all, but will, on the contrary, give an impetus to
      its development and hasten the class disintegration of the
      peasantry itself. The failure to grasp this truth makes the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries unconscious ideologists of the petty
      bourgeoisie. Insistence on this truth is of enormous importance
      for Social-Democracy, not only from the theoretical standpoint
      but also from the standpoint of practical politics, for from it
      follows that the complete class independence of the party of the
      proletariat in the present “general democratic” movement is
      obligatory.

But it does not at all follow from this that ademocraticrevolution (bourgeois in its social and
      economic substance) is not ofenormousinterest for the
      proletariat. It does not at all follow from this that the
      democratic revolution cannot take place in a form advantageous
      mainly to the big capitalist, the financial magnate and the
      “enlightened” landlord, as well as in a form advantageous to the
      peasant and to the worker.

The new-Iskraists thoroughly misunderstand the meaning and
      significance of the category: bourgeois revolution.Through their arguments there constantly runs the idea that a bourgeois
      revolution is a revolution which can be advantageous only to the
      bourgeoisie. And yet nothing is more erroneous than such an
      idea. A bourgeois revolution is a
      revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the bourgeois,
      i.e., capitalist, social and economic system. A bourgeois
      revolution expresses the need for the development of capitalism,
      and far from destroying the foundations of capitalism, it does
      the opposite, it broadens and deepens them. This revolution
      therefore expresses the interests not only of the working class,
      but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule of the
      bourgeoisie over the working class is inevitable under
      capitalism, it is quite correct to say that a bourgeois
      revolution expresses the interests not so much of the
      proletariat as of the bourgeoisie. But it is entirely absurd to
      think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests
      of the proletariat at all. This absurd idea boils down either to
      the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs
      counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore
      we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism,
      which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois
      politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois
      parliamentarism. From the standpoint of theory, this idea
      disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the
      inevitability of capitalist development where commodity
      production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based
      on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse
      with civilised capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its
      development, itself, inevitably takes the road of
      capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of
      the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for
      instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of
      capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other
      than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the
      framework of this same capitalism.

All these principles of
      Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in
      minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in
      particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea
      of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the
      further development of capitalism isreactionary. In
      countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much
      from capitalism as from the insufficient development of
      capitalism. The working classsuffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient
development of capitalism.The working classis thereforedecidedly
      interestedin the broadest, freest and most rapid
      development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of
      the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid
      development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working
      class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that
      most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the
      remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but
      monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest
      and most rapid development of capitalism.

That is why abourgeoisrevolution isin the
      highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. A bourgeois
      revolution isabsolutelynecessary in the interests of
      the proletariat. The more complete and determined, the more
      consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be
      the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie for
      Socialism. Only those who are ignorant of the rudiments of
      scientific Socialism can regard this conclusion as new or
      strange, paradoxical. And from this conclusion, among other
      things, follows the thesis that,in a certain sense, a
      bourgeois revolution ismore advantageousto the
      proletariat than to the bourgeoisie. This thesis is
      unquestionably correct in the following sense: it is to the
      advantage of the bourgeoisie to rely on certain remnants of the
      past as against the proletariat, for instance, on the monarchy,
      the standing army, etc. It is to the advantage of the
      bourgeoisie if the bourgeois revolution does not too resolutely
      sweep away all the remnants of the past, but leaves some of
      them, i.e., if this revolution is not fully consistent, if it is
      not complete and if it is not determined and
      relentless. Social-Democrats often express this idea somewhat
      differently by stating that the bourgeoisie betrays its own
      self, that the bourgeoisie betrays the cause of liberty, that
      the bourgeoisie is incapable of being consistently
      democratic. It is of greater advantage to the bourgeoisie if the
      necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take
      place more slowly, more gradually, more cautiously, less
      resolutely, by means of reforms and not by means of revolution;
      if these changes spare the “venerable” institutions of serfdom
      (such asthe monarchy) as much as possible; if these changes
      develop as little as possible the independent revolutionary
      activity, initiative and energy of the common people, i.e., the
      peasantry and especially the workers, for otherwise it will be
      easier for the workers, as the French say, “to hitch the rifle
      from one shoulder to the other,” i.e., to turn against the
      bourgeoisie the guns which the bourgeois revolution will place
      in their hands, the liberty which the revolution will bring, the
      democratic institutions which will spring up on the ground that
      is cleared of serfdom.

On the other hand, it is more advantageous for the working class
      if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy
      take place by way of revolution and not by way of reform; for
      the way of reform is the way of delay, of procrastination, of
      the painfully slow decomposition of the putrid parts of the
      national organism. It is the proletariat and the peasantry that
      suffer first of all and most of all from their putrefaction. The
      revolutionary way is the way of quick amputation, which is the
      least painful to the proletariat, the way of the direct removal
      of the decomposing parts, the way of fewest concessions to and
      least consideration for the monarchy and the disgusting, vile,
      rotten and contaminating institutions which go with it.

So it is not only because of the censorship, not only “for fear
      of the Jews,” that our bourgeois-liberal press deplores the
      possibility of a revolutionary way, is afraid of revolution,
      tries to frighten the tsar with the bogey of revolution, is
      anxious to avoid revolution, grovels and toadies for the sake of
      miserable reforms as a basis for a reformist way. This
      standpoint is shared not only by theRusskiye

      Vedomosti,[5]Syn

      Otechestva,[6]Nasha

      Zhizn[7]andNashi

      Dni,[8]but also by the illegal, uncensoredOsvobozhdeniye. The very position the bourgeoisie
      occupies as a class in capitalist society inevitably causes it
      to be inconsistent in a democratic revolution. The very position
      the proletariat occupies as a class compels it to be
      consistently democratic. The bourgeoisie looks backward, fearing
      democratic progress, which threatens to strengthen the
      proletariat. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains,
      but with the aid of democracy it has the whole world to
      gain. That is why the more consistent the bourgeois revolution
      is in

      achievingits democratic changes, the less will it limit itself to
      what is of advantage exclusively to the bourgeoisie. The more
      consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more does it guarantee
      the proletariat and the peasantry the benefits accruing from the
      democratic revolution.

Marxism teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the
      bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to it, not to allow
      the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the
      bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic
      part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian
      democracy, for carrying the revolution to its conclusion. We
      cannot jump out of the bourgeois-democratic boundaries of the
      Russian revolution, but we can vastly extend these boundaries,
      and within these boundaries we can and must fight for the
      interests of the proletariat, for its immediate needs and for
      the conditions that will make it possible to prepare its forces
      for the future complete victory. There is bourgeois democracy
      and bourgeois democracy. TheZemstvomonarchist who favours an upper chamber, and who “asks” for
      universal suffrage while secretly, on the sly, striking a
      bargain with tsarism for a curtailed constitution, is also a
      bourgeois-democrat. And the peasant who is fighting, arms in
      hand, against the landlords and the government officials and
      with a “naïve republicanism” proposes “to send the tsar

			      packing”,[1]is also a bourgeois-democrat. There are bourgeois-democratic
      regimes like the one in Germany and also in England, like the
      one in Austria and also like those in America or Switzerland. He
      would be a fine Marxist indeed, who in a period of democratic
      revolution failed to see the difference between the degrees of
      democracy, the difference of its various forms and confined
      himself to “clever” remarks to the effect that, after all, this
      is “a bourgeois revolution,” the fruits of a “bourgeois
      revolution.”

Our new-Iskraists are just such clever fellows flaunting their
      shortsightedness. They confine themselves to disquisitions on
      the bourgeois character of the revolution just when and where it
      is necessary to be able to draw a distinction between
      republican-revolutionary and monarchist-liberalbourgeois democracy, to say nothing of the distinction between
      inconsistent bourgeois democratism and consistent proletarian
      democratism. They are satisfied—as if they had really
      become like the “man in the

      muffler”[9]—to

      converse dolefully about a “process of mutual struggle of
      antagonistic classes,”
      when the question is one of givingdemocratic
      leadershipin the present revolution, of emphasisingprogressive democraticslogans as distinguished from
      the treacherous slogans of Mr. Struve and Co., of bluntly and
      straight forwardly stating the immediate aims of the really
      revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the peasantry, as
      distinguished from the liberal haggling of the landlords and
      factory owners. Such now is the gist of the matter, which you,
      gentlemen, have missed: will our revolution result in a real,
      immense victory, or merely in a wretched deal, will it go so far
      as the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat
      and the peasantry, or will it “peter out” in a liberal
      constitutionà laShipov?

At first sight it may appear that in raising this question we
      are deviating entirely from our subject. But this may appear to
      be so only at first sight. As a matter of fact, it is precisely
      this question that lies at the root of the difference in
      principle which has already become clearly marked between the
      Social-Democratic tactics of the Third Congress of the Russian
      Social-Democratic Labour Party and the tactics initiated by the
      Conference of the newIskrasupporters. The latter have
      already taken not two but three steps back, resurrecting the
      mistakes of Economism in solving problems that are incomparably
      more complex, more important and more vital to the workers’
      party, viz., questions of its tactics in time of
      revolution. That is why we must analyse the question we have
      raised with all due attention.

The above-quoted section of the new-Iskraists resolution which
      we have quoted above points to the danger of Social-Democracy
      tying its hands in the struggle against the inconsistent policy
      of the bourgeoisie, of its becoming dissolved in bourgeois
      democracy. The idea of this danger runs like a thread through
      all the literature typical of the newIskra, it is the
      real pivot of the principle involved in our Party split (ever
      since the elements of squabbling in this split were wholly
      eclipsed by the elements of a turn towardsEconomism). And
      without any equivocation we admit that this danger really
      exists, that just at the present time, at the height of the
      Russian revolution, this danger has become particularly
      grave. The pressing and extremely responsible duty that devolves
      on all of us theoreticians or—as I should prefer to say of
      myself— publicists of Social-Democracy, is to find outfrom what directionthis danger actually threatens. For
      the source of our disagreement is not a dispute as to whether
      such a danger exists, but the dispute as to whether it is caused
      by the so-calledkhvostismof the “Minority” or the
      so-called revolutionism of the “Majority.”

To remove all misinterpretations and misunderstandings, let us
      first of all note that the danger to which we are referring lies
      not in the subjective, but in the objective aspect of the
      matter, not in the formal position which Social-Democracy will
      take in the struggle, but in the material outcome of the entire
      present revolutionary struggle. The question is not whether this
      or that Social-Democratic group will want to dissolve in
      bourgeois democracy or whether they are conscious of the fact
      that they are merging. Nobody suggests that. We do not suspect
      any Social-Democrat of harbouring such a desire, and this is not
      at all a question of desires. Nor is it a question of whether
      this or that Social-Democratic group will formally retain its
      separate identity, individuality and independence of bourgeois
      democracy throughout the course of the revolution. They may not
      only proclaim such “independence” but even retain it formally,
      and yetit may turn outthat their hands will
      nonetheless be tied in the struggle against the inconsistency of
      the bourgeoisie. The final political result of the revolution
      may prove to be that, in spite of the formal “independence” of
      Social-Democracy, in spite of its complete organisational
      individuality as a separate party, it will in fact not be
      independent, it will not be able to put the imprint of its
      proletarian independence on the course of events, will prove so
      weak that, on the whole and in the last analysis, its
      “dissolving” in the bourgeois democracy will nonetheless be a
      historical fact.

That is what constitutes the real danger. Now let us see from
      what direction the danger threatens: from the fact that
      Social-Democracy as represented by the newIskrais deviating to the Right—as we believe; or from the fact that
      Social-Democracy as represented by the “Majority,” theVperyod, etc., is deviating to the Left—as the
      new-Iskraists believe.

The answer to this question, as we have pointed out, depends on
      the objective combination of the actions of the various social
      forces. The character of these forces has been defined
      theoretically by the Marxian analysis of Russian life; at the
      present time it is being defined in practice by the open action
      of groups and classes in the course of the revolution. Thus, the
      entire theoretical analysis made by the Marxists long before the
      period we are now passing through, as well as all the practical
      observations of the development of revolutionary events, show
      that from the standpoint of objective conditions there are two
      possible courses and outcomes of the revolution in Russia. A
      change in the economic and political system in Russia along
      bourgeois-democratic lines is inevitable and unavoidable. No
      power on earth can prevent such a change. But the combined
      actions of the existing forces which are effecting that change
      may result in one of two things, may bring about one of two
      forms of that change. Either 1) the result will be a “decisive
      victory of the revolution over tsarism,” or 2) the forces will
      be inadequate for a decisive victory and the matter will end in
      a deal between tsarism and the most “inconsistent” and most
      “self-seeking” elements of the bourgeoisie. By and large all the
      infinite variety of detail and combinations, which no one is
      able to foresee, lead to one or the other.

Let us now consider these two outcomes, first, from the
      standpoint of their social significance and, secondly, from the
      standpoint of the position of Social-Democracy (its “dissolving”
      or “having its hands tied”) in one or the other case.

What is a “decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism”? We
      have already seen that in using this expression the
      new-Iskraists fail to grasp even its immediate political
      significance. Still less do they seem to understand the class
      essence of this concept. Surely, we Marxists must not under any
      circumstances allow ourselves to be deluded bywordssuch as “revolution” or “the great Russian revolution,” as do
      many revolutionary democrats (of theGapontype). We must be perfectly clear in our minds as to what real
      social forces are opposed to “tsarism” (which is a real force,
      perfectly intelligible to all) and are capable of gaining a
      “decisive victory” over it. Such a force cannot be the big
      bourgeoisie, the landlords, the factory owners, “society” which
      follows the lead of theOsvobozhdentsi. We see that
      these do not even want a decisive victory. We know that owing to
      their class position they are incapable of waging a decisive
      struggle against tsarism; they are too heavily fettered by
      private property, capital and land to enter into a decisive
      struggle. They need tsarism with its bureaucratic, police and
      military forces for use against the proletariat and the
      peasantry too much to be able to strive for its destruction. No,
      the only force capable of gaining “a decisive victory over
      tsarism,” is the people, i.e., the proletariat and the
      peasantry, if we take the main, big forces and distribute the
      rural and urban petty bourgeoisie (also part of “the people”)
      between the two. “A decisive victory of the revolution over
      tsarism” is therevolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
      proletariat and the peasantry. Our new-Iskraists cannot
      escape from this conclusion, whichVperyodpointed out
      long ago. No one else is capable of gaining a decisive victory
      over tsarism.

And such a victory will be precisely a dictatorship, i.e., it
      must inevitably rely on military force, on the arming of the
      masses, on an insurrection, and not on institutions of one kind
      or another, established in a “lawful” or “peaceful” way. It can
      be only a dictatorship, for the realisation of the changes which
      are urgently and absolutely indispensable for the proletariat
      and the peasantry will call forth the desperate resistance of
      the landlords, of the big bourgeoisie and of tsarism. Without a
      dictatorship it is impossible to break down that resistance and
      to repel the counter-revolutionary attempts. But of course it
      will be a democratic, not a socialist dictatorship. It will not
      be able (without a series of intermediary stages of
      revolutionary development) to affect the foundations of
      capitalism. At best it may bring about a radical redistribution
      of landed property in favour of the peasantry, establish
      consistent and full democracy including the formation of a
      republic, eradicate all the oppressive features of Asiatic
      bondage, not only in village but also in factory life,lay the foundation for a thorough improvement in the position of the
      workers and for a rise in their standard of living,
      and—last but not least—carry the revolutionary
      conflagration into Europe. Such a victory will by no means as
      yet transform our bourgeois revolution into a socialist
      revolution; the democratic revolution will not directly overstep
      the bounds of bourgeois social and economic relationships;
      nevertheless, the significance of such a victory for the future
      development of Russia and of the whole world will be
      immense. Nothing will raise the revolutionary energy of the
      world proletariat so much, nothing will shorten the path leading
      to its complete victory to such an extent, as this decisive
      victory of the revolution that has now started in Russia.

How far such a victory is probable, is another question. We are
      not in the least inclined to be unreasonably optimistic on that
      score, we do not for a moment forget the immense difficulties of
      this task, but since we are out to fight we must desire victory
      and be able to point out the right road to it. Tendencies
      capable of leading to such a victory undoubtedly exist. True,
      our, Social-Democratic, influence on the masses of the
      proletariat is as yet very, very inadequate; the revolutionary
      influence on the mass of the peasantry is altogether
      insignificant; the proletariat, and especially the peasantry,
      are still frightfully scattered, backward and ignorant. But
      revolution unites quickly and enlightens quickly. Every step in
      its development rouses the masses and attracts them with
      irresistible force to the side of the
      revolutionary program, as the only program that fully and
      consistently expresses their real and vital interests.

According to a law of mechanics, every action produces an equal
      reaction. In history also the destructive force of a revolution
      is to a considerable degree dependent on how strong and
      protracted the suppression of the striving for liberty had been,
      and how profound the contradiction between the antediluvian
      “superstructure” and the living forces of the present epoch. The
      international political situation, too, is in many respects
      shaping itself in a way most advantageous for the Russian
      revolution. The insurrection of the workers and peasants has
      already commenced; it is sporadic, spontaneous,weak, but it unquestionably and undoubtedly proves the existence of forces
      capable of waging a decisive struggle and marching towards a
      decisive victory.

If these forces prove inadequate, tsarism will have time to
      conclude the deal which is already being prepared on two sides,
      by Messrs. the Bulygins on the one side, and Messrs. the
      Struves, on the other. Then the whole thing will end in a
      curtailed constitution, or, if the worst comes to the worst,
      even in a travesty of a constitution. This will also be a
      “bourgeois revolution,” but it will be a miscarriage, a
      premature birth, a mongrel. Social-Democracy entertains no
      illusions on that score, it knows the treacherous nature of the
      bourgeoisie, it will not lose heart or abandon its persistent,
      patient, sustained work of giving the proletariat class training
      even in the most drab, humdrum days of bourgeois-constitutional,
      “Shipov” bliss. Such an outcome would be more or less similar to
      the outcome of almost all the democratic revolutions in Europe
      during the nineteenth century, and our Party development would
      then proceed along the difficult, hard, long, but familiar and
      beaten track.

The question now arises: in which of these two possible outcomes
      will Social-Democracy find its hands actually tied in the fight
      against the inconsistent and self-seeking bourgeoisie, find
      itself actually “dissolved,” or almost so, in bourgeois
      democracy?

It is sufficient to put this question clearly to have not a
      moment’s difficulty in answering it.

If the bourgeoisie succeeds in frustrating the Russian
      revolution by coming to terms with tsarism, Social-Democracy
      will find its hands actually tied in the fight against the
      inconsistent bourgeoisie; Social-Democracy will find itself
      dissolved “in bourgeois democracy” in the sense that the
      proletariat will not succeed in putting its clear imprint on the
      revolution, will not succeed in settling accounts with tsarism
      in the proletarian or, as Marx once said, “in the plebeian”
      way.

If the revolution gains a decisive victory—then we shall
      settle accounts with tsarism in the Jacobin, or, if you like, in
      the plebeian way. “The whole French terrorism,” wrote Marx in
      1848 in the famousNeue Rheinische Zeitung, “was
      nothing but a plebeian manner of settling accounts with the
      enemies of the bourgeoisie, with absolutism, feudalismand philistinism” (see Marx,Nachlass, Mehring’s edition,
      Volume III,

      p. 211).[10]Have those people who, in a period of a democratic revolution,
      try to frighten the Social-Democratic workers in Russia with the
      bogey of “Jacobinism” ever stopped to think of the significance
      of these words of Marx?

The Girondists of contemporary Russian Social-Democracy, the newIskra-ists, do not merge with theOsvobozhdentsi, but in point of fact they, by reason of
      the nature of their slogans, follow at the tail of the
      latter. And theOsvobozhdentsi, i.e., the
      representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie, wish to settle
      accounts with the autocracy gently, in a reformist way, in a
      yielding manner, so as not to offend the aristocracy, the
      nobles, the Court—cautiously, without breaking
      anything—kindly and politely, as befits gentlemen in white
      gloves (like the ones Mr. Petrunkevich borrowed from abashi-bazoukto wear at the reception of “representatives of the people”[?]
      held byNicholas
      the

      Bloody[2].

      SeeProletary,

				No. 5[3]).

The Jacobins of contemporary Social-Democracy—the
      Bolsheviks, theVperyodovtsi,Syezdovtsi,Proletartsi(e.g. supporters of theVperyod,
      the “Congress” group, or supporters ofProletary)
      — all names given to the Bolsheviks, derived from their
      publication of the two papers mentioned, and
      “Syezdovtsi” because they convened the Third Congress
      of the R.S.D.L.P.or whatever we may call them—wish
      by their slogans to raise the revolutionary and republican petty
      bourgeoisie, and especially the peasantry, to the level of the
      consistent democratism of the proletariat, which fully retains
      its individuality as a class. They want the people, i.e., the
      proletariat and the peasantry, to settle accounts with the
      monarchy and the aristocracy in the “plebeian way,” ruthlessly
      destroying the enemies of liberty, crushing their resistance by
      force, making no concessions whatever to the accursed heritage
      of serfdom, of Asiatic barbarism and human degradation.

This, of course, does not mean that we necessarily propose to
      imitate the Jacobins of 1793, to adopt their views, program,
      slogans and methods of action. Nothing of the kind. Our program
      is not an old one, it is a new one—the minimum program of
      the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. We have a new
      slogan: the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
      proletariat and the peasantry. We shall also have, if we live to
      see a real victory of the revolution,new methods of action, in harmony with the nature and aims of
      the working-class party that is striving for a complete
      socialist revolution. By our comparison we merely want to
      explain that the representatives of the progressive class of the
      twentieth century, of the proletariat, i.e., the
      Social-Democrats, are divided into two wings (the opportunist
      and the revolutionary) similar to those into which the
      representatives of the progressive class of the eighteenth
      century, the bourgeoisie, were divided, i.e., the Girondists and
      the Jacobins.

Only in the event of a complete victory of the democratic
      revolution will the proletariat have its hands free in the
      struggle against the inconsistent bourgeoisie, only in that
      event will it not become “dissolved” in bourgeois democracy, but
      will leave its proletarian or rather proletarian-peasant imprint
      on the whole revolution.

In a word, in order to avoid finding itself with its hands tied
      in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeois democrats,
      the proletariat must be sufficiently class conscious and strong
      to rouse the peasantry to revolutionary consciousness, to direct
      its attack, and thereby to pursue the line of consistent
      proletarian democratism independently.

This is how matters stand with regard to the question, so
      ineptly dealt with by the newIskragroup, of the
      danger of our hands being tied in the struggle against the
      inconsistent bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will always be
      inconsistent. There is nothing more naïve and futile than
      attempts to set forth conditions and

				points[4],

      which if satisfied, would enable us to consider that the bourgeois
      democrat is a sincere friend of the people. Only the proletariat
      can be a consistent fighter for democracy. It may become a
      victorious fighter for democracy only if the peasant masses join
      its revolutionary struggle. If the proletariat is not strong
      enough for this, the bourgeoisie will be at the head of the
      democratic revolution and will impart to it an inconsistent and
      self-seeking nature. Nothing short of a revolutionary-democratic
      dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry can prevent
      this.

Thus, we arrive at the indubitable conclusion that it is
      precisely the newIskratactics, by its objective
      significance, that areplaying into the hands of the
      bourgeois democrats. Preaching organisational diffusion
      that goes to the length of plebiscites, the principle of
      compromise and the divorcement of Party literature from the
      Party, belittling the aims of armed insurrection, confusing the
      popular political slogans of the revolutionary proletariat with
      those of the monarchist bourgeoisie, distorting the requisites
      for a “decisive victory of the revolution over tsarism”—all
      this taken together constitutes that very policy ofkhvostismin a revolutionary period which perplexes the
      proletariat, disorganises it, confuses its understanding and
      belittles the tactics of Social-Democracy, instead of pointing
      out the only way to victory and of rallying all the
      revolutionary and republican elements of the people to the
      proletariat’s slogan.

To bear out this conclusion, reached by us through analysis of
      the resolution, let us approach this same question from other
      angles. Let us see, first, how  in the GeorgianSotsial-Demokrata naïve and outspoken Menshevik
      illustrates the new-Iskra. Secondly, let us see who is
      actually making use of the newIskraslogans in the
      present political situation.

[1]See theOsvobozbdeniye, No. 71, page 337, footnote 2.  —Lenin

[2]A reference to the audience granted to the Zemstvo deputation by
      Nicholas II on June 6, 1905. The deputation handed in a petition
      with the request to convene representatives of the people in
      order to establish a “renewed constitution”. The petition
      contained neither the demand for universal, direct and equal
      suffrage by secret ballot, nor the demand for guaranteed free
      elections.
    —Lenin

[3]“‘Revolutionaries’ in Kid Gloves”, 1905.See present edition. Volume 8, pp. 526-30.—Ed.

[4]As was attempted by Starover in his resolution, annulled by the Third

      Congress,[11]and as is attempted by the Conference in an equally bad resolution.
        —Lenin

[5]PLACEHOLDER

[6]PLACEHOLDER

[7]PLACEHOLDER

[8]PLACEHOLDER

[9]The man in the muffler–the chief character in
  Chekhov’s story of the same name, a man
  typifying the narrow-minded philistine who abhors all
  innovations or initiative.

[10]Lenin is referring to the bookAus demm
  literarische,. Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und
  Ferdinand Lassalle. Heraus gegeben von Franz Mshring,Bd. III, Stuttgart 1902, S. 211.

  See K. Marx and F. Engels,Selected Works, Moscow 1958,
  Vol. I, P. 67

[11]The reference is to the resolution tabled by Starover (pseudonym of
  the MenshevikA.
     N. Potresov)

  on the attitude towards the liberals, which was
  adopted at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., and was
  criticised by Lenin in the article “Working-Class and Bourgeois
  Democracy” (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 72-82).